Permit revoked

[DaveTN]

A couple of important facts…. I think many of you are missing the fact that he was represented by a lawyer. Also, a Judge can do whatever he likes within reason. I think allowing a reduction in charges based partly on the voluntary agreement to a lifetime HCP revocation is reasonable. If the DOS is made aware of that I don't think they can simply decide it is not legal and issue a permit; they would need a court order. They aren’t going to do that; he would have to hire an attorney to do that.

According to him, his attorney told him he didn't have to take this deal, but would likely stand trial on felony charges. He voluntarily agreed to the terms of the plea deal. Plenty of people get their nerve back when they aren't facing jail time; unfortunately you don't get a second go around.

[East_TN_Patriot]

... it makes sense that any kind of assault, even on the juvenile record would be a denial. Could you imagine being the TBI official who has to explain in court why he approved a gun sale to a person with an assault on their record who was later involved in a larger crime?

Are you serious??? Do you really think that a simple assault is an indicator that someone would be involved in a gun crime? Especially a juvenile charge? How many of us have been involved in some sort of physical altercation sometime in our lives? Please tell me you are critiquing bureaucratic BS and our over-litigious society and not suggesting simple assault is a predictor of violent gun crime.

Edited April 29, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think some posters are stuck on the term "lifetime ban" or "revocation". Neither of these happened. As part of his plea agreement he AGREED to SURRENDER his permit. He gave it up, they did not take it from him. This was done to avoid felony charges.

As a LEO I have seen people agree to give up a variety of things in plea deals. You would be surprised at the things people give up.

BTW, his voluntary surrender of the permit is part of the deal. If he renews or keeps his HCP the prosecutor can move to void the plea and pursue the original charges.

^^^^ This. Typically, once you have signed that plea deal, you are poop outa luck. By agreeing to the plea, you are acknowledging that you have read, understand, and will abide by the conditions of the plea deal. This goes along with earlier post "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" comment. If you agreed to the deal without fully reading and understanding it, you win the prize. Unless you can prove that the lifetime surrendering of the permit was NOT clearly laid out by the prosecutor prior to the plea deal, you really have no leg to stand on.

[Smith]

Are you serious??? Do you really think that a simple assault is an indicator that someone would be involved in a gun crime? Especially a juvenile charge? How many of us have been involved in some sort of physical altercation sometime in our lives? Please tell me you are critiquing bureaucratic BS and our over-litigious society and not suggesting simple assault is a predictor of violent gun crime.

What????? I'm not suggesting anything as a predictor. I'm saying that from what I have seen from TICS/TBI/FBI is that any violence related charges carry more denial weight than most other charges and for the reason you quoted above. How you got from A to X in that thought pattern is beyond me.

[RobertNashville]

Keyword here is "Domestic Assault and Stalking"...If you have been charged with either you will not qualify for a HCP.

Unless someone is presently under indictment that simply isn't correct as I read the law - a conviction for domestic violence or stalking disqualifies you for an HCP; not simply having been charged.

Edited April 29, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest errishe45]

Sounds like you got a bad lawyer

[BlackHawk93]

Unless someone is presently under indictment that simply isn't correct as I read the law - a conviction for domestic violence or stalking disqualifies you for an HCP; not simply having been charged.

Well Robert thats what I was referring to.. I simply used the wrong word. I was referring to whatever the OP was convicted for. Excuse me for not using the correct legal term.

[Troutburger]

Sounds like you got a bad lawyer

Sounds to me like he had a great lawyer. He's not in jail for what most people consider serious offenses.

[RobertNashville]

Well Robert thats what I was referring to.. I simply used the wrong word. I was referring to whatever the OP was convicted for. Excuse me for not using the correct legal term.

I hope you didn't take it the wrong way but when discussion legal issues, the words used are important.

[BlackHawk93]

I hope you didn't take it the wrong way but when discussion legal issues, the words used are important.

Wait. Don't you mean when "discussing" instead of discussion in the above sentence? Don't let that serious misuse of the wrong word mess up this discussion of an important legal issue. Something might get misconstrued.

[Guest errishe45]

Sounds to me like he had a great lawyer. He's not in jail for what most people consider serious offenses.

Oh please! He got a plea bargain that forbids him for life from ever carrying a handgun. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. A "good" attorney would have bargained around that. I know that for a fact. Plus I doubt he would have actually served ANY time on such a charge. Other than the mandatory 48 hours on the dui.

[DaveTN]

Oh please! He got a plea bargain that forbids him for life from ever carrying a handgun. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal to me. A "good" attorney would have bargained around that. I know that for a fact. Plus I doubt he would have actually served ANY time on such a charge. Other than the mandatory 48 hours on the dui.

How can you know that for a fact; do you know what he did?

He admits that he committed assault while armed; that's aggravated assault; a felony.

The DUI just tells me that he was driving either during the incident or when they stopped him. Most DUI's aren't carrying a gun threatening people.

Without knowing who he threatened or how a gun came into play you have no idea what a good lawyer could have bargained around.

I would say this... A lawyer that can get a felony assault involving a gun reduced to a misdemeanor is a good attorney.

A lawyer that could get a felony assault involving a gun reduced to a misdemeanor, AND you still be allowed to have an HCP is a great lawyer.

[Oh Shoot]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

[Guest m&pc9]

Wait. Don't you mean when "discussing" instead of discussion in the above sentence? Don't let that serious misuse of the wrong word mess up this discussion of an important legal issue. Something might get misconstrued.

Thats good.

[mikegideon]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

I get the feeling that the ADA doesn't like folks carrying guns, but it's just a feeling. We don't have all the facts, as usual.

[RobertNashville]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

That's a very good question! I would certainly hope that simply being armed, in view or not, would not automatically "up" a charge...if so then anyone who routinely open carries would really have a potential problem. I'm assuming/hoping that there was a bit more going one that just the fact that his weapon was "visible".

[CQB Elite]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

I'd be interested in that as well. I've been in TN for 3 years and I'm still trying to get a handle on some of the laws. Back in FL we have 2 separate charges- assault & battery- with 2 different levels (assault, battery, agg assault, agg battery).

[Guest mosinon]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

I think it comes down to the prosecutor on this one. I think there is something about displaying a deadly weapon. So, one supposes, you could argue that if you were open carrying and went upside someone's head you did commit aggravated assault because you were, in fact, displaying the weapon.

On the other hand the question is a little bit esoteric. First you have to find a licensed gun carrier that will actually get all bothered and smack somebody upside the head. Secondly, they'd have to be openly carrying. Not many folks do that. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Finally you have to have someone willing to press charges...After they got the crap beaten out of them... by someone with a gun.

Which makes it a little more interesting because they might argue they couldn't fight back because the fight was with someone with a gun.

I think, in general, the best advice is don't slap someone upside the head unless they slap you upside the head first.

That said, if everything went exactly wrong, it is conceivable that you carrying a weapon openly (knife, gun, or in my case the world's most deadly fists) your assault could be ratcheted up a notch.

Not a chance I would take.

[JC57]

Aggravated assault in Tennessee includes if you commit a simple assault (i.e. punch someone) while displaying a deadly weapon (holstered gun on your belt, as long as the victim sees it). Aggravated Assault is a class C felony.

Michie's Legal Resources#

39-13-102. Aggravated assault.

(a) A person commits aggravated assault who:

(1) Intentionally or knowingly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101 and:

(A) Causes serious bodily injury to another; or

( Uses or displays a deadly weapon; or

(2) Recklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101(a)(1), and:

(A) Causes serious bodily injury to another; or

( Uses or displays a deadly weapon.

I am not a lawyer but I was a police officer in Tennessee for a number of years and I did learn the basic elements of the offenses.

So yes, simply carrying a weapon on you can elevate the severity of other crimes you might commit.

Remember, HCPs are for law-abiding citizens. Obey the law if you plan to carry, which includes not assaulting people.

[JC57]

...Which makes it a little more interesting because they might argue they couldn't fight back because the fight was with someone with a gun...

I believe this is exactly the logic behind why it becomes aggravated assault. There used to be a completely separate offense called "Assault while possessing a deadly weapon" but it got merged into the Aggravated Assault statute (if memory serves - it's been a while).

[MacGyver]

Originally Posted by OhShoot

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

I don't think open carrying will affect it much. The damage has already been done.

If you get into an altercation that gets the cops called and you get arrested, they're going to find your weapon. It's going to be an issue, and will likely be held against you by the state.

If you're carrying a weapon, you have a burden to behave better than everyone else. You have to take the high road even when it may be personally humiliating to do so. If you're not willing to do this, I'd argue that you haven't thought your responsibility all the way through, and have no business carrying a weapon. You are not an asset to yourself or society. You are a liability.

To the OP, good luck. It's probably worth discussing the situation with counsel at some point, as the situation as you described it seems peculiar. Even so, it also sounds like you have some growing to do before you strap on a weapon again.

Edited May 1, 2011 by MacGyver

[DaveTN]

A slight aside to this saga, but I think an interesting question I've never considered before.

The aggravated assault was because according to OP he had a handgun "in view". We don't know if that means in his hand or what.

My question is, so you smack somebody while legally open carrying, gun never leaves the holster. Are you now guilty of aggravated assault since your handgun is "in view"?

- OS

That’s up to the discretion of the Officer and then what the DA wants to charge. I have charged someone that was committing a battery with aggravated battery because they were armed with a gun. They didn’t use the gun but I felt the purpose of wearing the gun was to intimidate and imply that they would use it. The Judge agreed.

If you're carrying a weapon, you have a burden to behave better than everyone else. You have to take the high road even when it may be personally humiliating to do so. If you're not willing to do this, I'd argue that you haven't thought your responsibility all the way through, and have no business carrying a weapon. You are not an asset to yourself or society. You are a liability.

I agree.

Edited April 30, 2011 by DaveTN

[Dad03]

If you saw the revocation for life statement in the plea deal would it had made a difference in your discission. Would you have signed it or said forget it lets go to trial?

This won't help you much but thanks for sharing (partially) your story. The rest of us should take lessons learned away from this and fly straight or be subjected to the consequences.